Speaking of MDoAs, have you guys been playing that you only roll the attack die once each round and apply it to every attack (even the dwarf shield attack)? I don't like that since all of the MDoA will succeed or all fail. To me it would make more sense to reroll the attack die with every attack.

fjw70 wrote:Speaking of MDoAs, have you guys been playing that you only roll the attack die once each round and apply it to every attack (even the dwarf shield attack)? I don't like that since all of the MDoA will succeed or all fail. To me it would make more sense to reroll the attack die with every attack.

As I understand it, if a character dual weilding-- including a dwarve's shield bash-- then the MDoA die (or attack die) is only rolled once. Only if the character has two actions is the MDoA die rolled twice.

It does seem confusing. I am starting to favor the idea put forth by a few people that dual weilding or shield bashing should result in roll damage for both weapons, use highest only. Then one action would always translate into only one action die, which would keep things simple.

fjw70 wrote:Speaking of MDoAs, have you guys been playing that you only roll the attack die once each round and apply it to every attack (even the dwarf shield attack)? I don't like that since all of the MDoA will succeed or all fail. To me it would make more sense to reroll the attack die with every attack.

As I understand it, if a character dual weilding-- including a dwarve's shield bash-- then the MDoA die (or attack die) is only rolled once. Only if the character has two actions is the MDoA die rolled twice.

It does seem confusing. I am starting to favor the idea put forth by a few people that dual weilding or shield bashing should result in roll damage for both weapons, use highest only. Then one action would always translate into only one action die, which would keep things simple.

Look for the "Xbows, Two handed weapons & equalizing damage thread". There you can find the houserule i'm applying to weapon usage!

The 14 AGI, 1st level thief has something cool to do in combat beside trying to backstab (she can attack with two daggers rolling 1d4 twice, keeping highest, or attack with only one dagger to parry with the other,increasing her AC by +1) and she's looking forward for next level when she'll be able to double-wield a 1d6 weapon and 1d4 weapon.

The cleric, decided to buy a cheap Greataxe for 7 gp : it's worth 1d8 damage, but since it's two-handed he gets to roll twice and pick highest. This is going to prove useful against the boss (a demon).

To keep things interesting we play with "shields shall be splintered" houserule too, so that shield+one handed weapon is still a viable option.

PS: i've also changed some weapon damage : crossbows does 1d7 but requires to not move to reload, while bows do 1d6 and 1d8 respectively, for example.

fjw70 wrote:Speaking of MDoAs, have you guys been playing that you only roll the attack die once each round and apply it to every attack (even the dwarf shield attack)? I don't like that since all of the MDoA will succeed or all fail. To me it would make more sense to reroll the attack die with every attack.

I was able to play-test with a 4th level Warrior on Saturday at SoCal Minicon with Joe Goodman as the Judge. I rolled the "class" die separately every time I attacked.

On that note, there is no concern for MDoA being abused. You have to be reasonable with it. You can't blind or knock everything prone, etc., unless you can reasonably explain how you're doing it, and why it should work. I effectively cleaved a couple times, and the bonus damage from the class die really made my warrior "the man" when it came to combat. At minimum, if you don't specifically declare some Mighty Deed, the bonus damage was always nice.

fjw70 wrote:Speaking of MDoAs, have you guys been playing that you only roll the attack die once each round and apply it to every attack (even the dwarf shield attack)? I don't like that since all of the MDoA will succeed or all fail. To me it would make more sense to reroll the attack die with every attack.

I was able to play-test with a 4th level Warrior on Saturday at SoCal Minicon with Joe Goodman as the Judge. I rolled the "class" die separately every time I attacked.

On that note, there is no concern for MDoA being abused. You have to be reasonable with it. You can't blind or knock everything prone, etc., unless you can reasonably explain how you're doing it, and why it should work. I effectively cleaved a couple times, and the bonus damage from the class die really made my warrior "the man" when it came to combat. At minimum, if you don't specifically declare some Mighty Deed, the bonus damage was always nice.

Did he run it that you got the bonus die damage or a MDoA, or both?

How did he do cleave? Extra attack if you rolled a 3+ on the attack die?

fjw70 wrote:
Did he run it that you got the bonus die damage or a MDoA, or both?

How did he do cleave? Extra attack if you rolled a 3+ on the attack die?

It's hard to say because I didn't see the stats on the monster, I just described what I wanted to do and Joe adjudicated it the results. It might not have been a "cleave" in 3x terms, but I did attack two different things at once. The class die was definitely added to the damage which makes sense with what I was trying to do, attack two things with one swing of a two-hand sword.

Keep in mind that I don't like to meta-game as a player so I didn't try to do any of the "7-MDoAs" as listed in the Beta Rules. I tried to be as descriptive as reasonably possible with all my attacks and tried to specify my intent. But combat is so quick, that a couple successful blows typically kills, so Mighty Deeds will many times only be aesthetic, which I think is a really good thing.

fjw70 wrote:
Did he run it that you got the bonus die damage or a MDoA, or both?

How did he do cleave? Extra attack if you rolled a 3+ on the attack die?

It's hard to say because I didn't see the stats on the monster, I just described what I wanted to do and Joe adjudicated it the results. It might not have been a "cleave" in 3x terms, but I did attack two different things at once. The class die was definitely added to the damage which makes sense with what I was trying to do, attack two things with one swing of a two-hand sword.

Keep in mind that I don't like to meta-game as a player so I didn't try to do any of the "7-MDoAs" as listed in the Beta Rules. I tried to be as descriptive as reasonably possible with all my attacks and tried to specify my intent.

That's a good MDoA use - the two-handed sword orizontal swipe to hit two enemies.

As for

But combat is so quick, that a couple successful blows typically kills, so Mighty Deeds will many times only be aesthetic, which I think is a really good thing.

that's why i wanted to houserule that MDoA doesn't get the bonus damage. If you declare you want to attack the ogre leg to trip him, instead of just going for the head, and you deal 1d10+d5+1 damage, that's 9.5 average damage... with a maximum of 16, which could be enough to just kill the ogre...... then why bother tripping it? and how did a blow to the leg kill the guy!?
Not getting the extra d5 if attacking the leg as opposed to getting it if going straight for vital spots means that the same trip attack will deal 1d10+1 damage, average 6.5, maximum 11. That's a big difference, and i think it might be cinematic to cut the ogre calf to drop him on his knee then finishing him with a slash to the throat...

This is, unless we decide that there is some damage allocation on body parts, in which case we state for example that a bipedal creature will have 1/4 of HP per leg, and any excess damage on a leg will just be wasted - and won't kill the creature.

abk108 wrote:
that's why i wanted to houserule that MDoA doesn't get the bonus damage. If you declare you want to attack the ogre leg to trip him, instead of just going for the head, and you deal 1d10+d5+1 damage, that's 9.5 average damage... with a maximum of 16, which could be enough to just kill the ogre...... then why bother tripping it? and how did a blow to the leg kill the guy!?
Not getting the extra d5 if attacking the leg as opposed to getting it if going straight for vital spots means that the same trip attack will deal 1d10+1 damage, average 6.5, maximum 11. That's a big difference, and i think it might be cinematic to cut the ogre calf to drop him on his knee then finishing him with a slash to the throat..

You're probably over-thinking it. It isn't much of a house-rule as it would be common sense. Using your example, if the intent is to trip the ogre, vs. killing him, less damage would make more sense. But don't forget that DCC's (as with D&D) combat is abstract. And so a really high damage roll with a tripping attack could result in severing a vein, and the ogre dying of shock and blood-loss, or even him falling on his spiked mace. That result is well within the rules, and would make for a really cool death scene.

jmucchiello wrote:But look at what a 7 does on the MDoA charts just imagine what you can do with an 11 or 12 on those charts.

Player: "I try to knock my opponent back"
{11} DM: "You smack the butt of your weapon down against the dirt causing the ground to shake, knocking over every opponent within 40'. If you are unarmed, you clap your hands together to achieve this effect, but the effect is a cone 120 degree wide and 60' long instead of a circle 40' in radius."
{12} DM: "You smack the butt of your weapon or fist down against the dirt causing a 20' deep fissure to split in the earth between you and your opponent. The opponent falls into the fissure taking 2d6 hp of damage and must make a Reflex save (DC your attack roll) to avoid being trapped between the walls of the fissue."
etc.

If the Class die for MDoA is allowed to progress beyond 7d then the descriptions for the effects become a more effective (and reliable) form of magic that has no risks for casting... The system bias towards "Conan/Hercules" style fighters is starting to get ridiculous.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I like the MDoA charts as they are... topping out at 7d, & I'm fine w/ the 5 level cap for Classes. When I consider 5th level DCC RPG vs. 20th Level D&D 3.5 it becomes obvious that these are supposed to be equivalent in abilities and power because they are the respective maximums for their systems- making a very nifty 1 to 4 ratio for conversions. This ratio of 1:4 is additionally supported by the Warriors application of Luck to a weapon at 1st level, which is similar to Weapon specialization at 4th level for Fighters in D&D3.5. The amount of power a that a 1st level Wizard can wield in DCC RPG is closer to 5th level or beyond in D&D 3.5, but the randomness & corruptions balance this out somewhat, so I think the 1:4 ratio holds for them as well.

When I start designing anything for the DCC system I try to keep this ratio in mind. When I want a spell to do 20d6 damage, then in DCC terms, that is 5d6... especially considering how few Hit Points there are for some characters. If I want a Poison to do 1d4 primary & secondary stat damage, then 1 point each should be sufficient challenge for DCC characters considering how low their stats & saves are.

It's all in how you look at it, I suppose...

The; "I want my character to have more levels & options" meme is easily fixed by keeping the levels as written & allow characters (& non-humans) to take multiple classes. One of the house rules I'll be implementing is: players can take 1 additional Class for every point of INT bonus. This will allow characters to collect a larger pool of HP and skill/weapon choices & have some "epic" style game play.

I've even written a table for Occupation Class level progression from 0 to 5th (6 total levels). The idea that this adds next to nothing in combat value, but each extra level allows the character to make Occupational Class skill checks; like Alchemist, with greater levels of skill.

Ex. An Alchemist with an INT of 13, who survives the "Funnel" could go through his career alternating between "Alchemist" & Wizard. Then his career tops out at Alchemist 5/ Wizard 5 and would make Alchemist related skill checks at +5; +2 on attacks and most saves over & above a normal 5th level Wizard; and a total of 11d4+Stamina for HP. He could then retire as the equivalent of a 44th level PC in D&D3.5 & have the trophies and spoils to prove he did it.

Of course, a character w/ 16 levels (18 Int): Occ Class 5/Class 5/ Class 5 will have the equivalent of 64 levels in D&D3.5... is most likely Spelljamming and acting to change the Fate of entire Systems of Planets... but then I like "big" games with lots of scenery and role play potential.

Last edited by Tortog on Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

I wish I could remember which thread it was on, but someone was saying (I think it was one of the "upper echelon" folks, or 1st round playtester) wrote that the system was originally capped @ 5 lvls, but was being increased to 10 due to play test feed back.

and i don't think it's right to try and find a ratio between dcc and d&d.

Really? That's odd considering the system (to paraphrase the designers) is all about being a tribute to what D&D could have been if it had stuck closer to "appendix N" with a robust d20 engine driving it. Especially considering the fact that 80% or more of the supplements and modules available as resources are going to be D&D3.0, 3.5: or 3PP written for those systems. It seems to me that finding a way to easily convert from one to the other would be most useful.

At the very least, I figure it's a good place to start...

They're just different systems with different aims.

I disagree. Their aims are the same as any other RPG... to tell a fun & entertaining story.

The problem with D&D3.0 forward is that it is the unholy offspring of 2nd ed D&D and Starfleet Battles. You know; a rule (and exception) for every situation & you'd better know them all if your going to get the "game balanced" properly.

That is what's so neat about the DCC system... we're unshackled from all of that drek & we can get back to the story-telling like it used to be.

Tortog wrote:The problem with D&D3.0 forward is that it is the unholy offspring of 2nd ed D&D and Starfleet Battles. You know; a rule (and exception) for every situation & you'd better know them all if your going to get the "game balanced" properly.

OMG thats was a marriage I would love to have seen!

Tortog wrote:That is what's so neat about the DCC system... we're unshackled from all of that drek & we can get back to the story-telling like it used to be.

+d24 Agreed. Give us lots of guidelines but few rules DCC.

By all means make it Aerith compatable but the game begs to have a DM make a customised world for it. Just as no two App N books (by different authors naturally) were different in flavor so too should DCC games be unique to there respective Game masters.

On a more directly thread related tac now, Nexusphere pointed out in another thread that if the game design is not careful the warriors attack dice will actually be outstripped by the flat "+'s" of attack adds of other classes. Naturally the other classes don't have MDoA or an add to damage from their static Attack bonuses like the warrior has from their attack bonus die. But the point he made is worth mentioning (in paraphrase) here. A 5th L cleric's +3 is just a bit below the average of a 5th L warrior. And while the Warrior gets bonus attacks and damage it IS an anomaly that on occasion they will have less bonus than the Cleric in a combat move (IE they roll a 1 or 2). I agree with him that that feels wrong.

So while I am in favor of capping out the MDoA dice I hope the designers make sure that the static advancement of other classes ever get to exceed the average of the MDoA. Added damages or special effects aside the Warrior should always have the best to hit bonus of any class period.

I think people are taking the MDoA that are listed way too literal. They're just guidelines and examples. When I played a 4-level Warrior, Joela played a 4-level Dwarf, we attempted a "Mighty Deed" every chance we could. We couldn't every time, because it wasn't realistic to do so every attack. But when we did, and if we succeeded, not once did Joe look at a list or chart to come up with a result, he went off what we intended, and probably (I can't read his mind) scaled it according to the "class" die roll. So it doesn't matter if the "class" die is capped at d7 or d12, it can and should scale as the Warrior (and Dwarf) go up in level resulting in closer or better than we intended.

I think the best thing for Joe to do, to clarify this, would be to eliminate the 7 example charts, and give several narrative examples instead.

As for negating the "class" die's damage, while doing a MDoA, why bother? It's negligible. It'll average a +8.5 by the time they're 10-level! That's not really that much, especially when there is a likely hood that can result in a 1 on occasion. Most of the time that extra damage is the Mighty Deed.

@Tortog : I think that the aim in DCC is to tell a story, survive and overcome terrible odds. The aim in 3E has always been the aquisition of power, whether through magical items - which are quite easy to obtain, and the game clearly states how much wealth you're supposed to have at each level (ok, it's a guideline, but we all know that in 3E every guideline is meant to be followed...)- or through experience and levels. PCs in 3E are meant to survive and win, they're the heroes, they have access to "coolness" as prestige classes and stuff. PCs in DCC are supposed to be a bunch of survivors that struggle to get away with their lives and a handful of gold pieces.
Am i totally wrong in this ???

@reverendakk : I don't think 8.5 avg damage is negligible at 10th level! I expect a 10th level warrior to deal 1d8+2 base damage with a +2 sword (ok, we all know we don't like standard 3E magic items, this is just an example), +2 for a 16 STR (which is way above average but we can expect a 10th level warrior to have made it that far because he was really above average; also, it might be the result of further magic items). That's 1d8+4, or 8.5 avg damage. Now, an extra d16 (i suspect i'd like a 10th level warrior to have a d12...) would DOUBLE that amount, making it 17 avg damage! a +100% increase is not negligible.
Maybe you mean that at that level you might be fighting Balors with 16d10 HP, but still that's not bad at all! Also it might explain why a young warrior would often just swing at his enemies (he needs that extra dmg, while the chances of pulling off a MDoA are scarce), whereas a veteran would probably use more brain and technique than muscles: he'd go for MDoAs knowing he can succeed more often than not, and he doesn't really need that extra 8.5 dmg.

abk108 wrote:@Tortog : I think that the aim in DCC is to tell a story, survive and overcome terrible odds. The aim in 3E has always been the aquisition of power, whether through magical items - which are quite easy to obtain, and the game clearly states how much wealth you're supposed to have at each level (ok, it's a guideline, but we all know that in 3E every guideline is meant to be followed...)- or through experience and levels. PCs in 3E are meant to survive and win, they're the heroes, they have access to "coolness" as prestige classes and stuff. PCs in DCC are supposed to be a bunch of survivors that struggle to get away with their lives and a handful of gold pieces.
Am i totally wrong in this ???

@reverendakk : I don't think 8.5 avg damage is negligible at 10th level! I expect a 10th level warrior to deal 1d8+2 base damage with a +2 sword (ok, we all know we don't like standard 3E magic items, this is just an example), +2 for a 16 STR (which is way above average but we can expect a 10th level warrior to have made it that far because he was really above average; also, it might be the result of further magic items). That's 1d8+4, or 8.5 avg damage. Now, an extra d16 (i suspect i'd like a 10th level warrior to have a d12...) would DOUBLE that amount, making it 17 avg damage! a +100% increase is not negligible.
Maybe you mean that at that level you might be fighting Balors with 16d10 HP, but still that's not bad at all! Also it might explain why a young warrior would often just swing at his enemies (he needs that extra dmg, while the chances of pulling off a MDoA are scarce), whereas a veteran would probably use more brain and technique than muscles: he'd go for MDoAs knowing he can succeed more often than not, and he doesn't really need that extra 8.5 dmg.

Something tells me that an average of 17 is actually pretty low for the most powerful mortal Warrior in the world, especially when a 4-level Wizard can do 168 pts of damage with a single Magic Missle spell if he maxes out (rolls a 20 and spell burns.)

I think we're going to disagree with what the sweet spot is here. What power levels equate to "true" Sword & Sorcery is debatable. We both agree that 3x's power levels are much higher, especially with 30+ being epic, while DCC's cap at 10.

So far with my play experience and due to DCC's randomness, a 1-level character is the equivalent of a 1d3 level 3e character in class skill, but equal in HP and weaker in abilities and equipment. So a 10-level DCC Warrior is clearly weaker than a 10-level 3e Fighter. Powerful is hardly a term I'd use to describe a 10-level PC. Tough, maybe.

reverenddak wrote:
Something tells me that an average of 17 is actually pretty low for the most powerful mortal Warrior in the world, especially when a 4-level Wizard can do 168 pts of damage with a single Magic Missle spell if he maxes out (rolls a 20 and spell burns.)

I think we're going to disagree with what the sweet spot is here. What power levels equate to "true" Sword & Sorcery is debatable. We both agree that 3x's power levels are much higher, especially with 30+ being epic, while DCC's cap at 10.

So far with my play experience and due to DCC's randomness, a 1-level character is the equivalent of a 1d3 level 3e character in class skill, but equal in HP and weaker in abilities and equipment. So a 10-level DCC Warrior is clearly weaker than a 10-level 3e Fighter. Powerful is hardly a term I'd use to describe a 10-level PC. Tough, maybe.

Well, the problem with that is the overpowered magic missile we got in the beta! If Magic Missile could do (tops) 70 damage, with 10 missile for 1d6+1 damage, and a warrior could do 34 with two attacks in a round, well that's not too bad, considering a warrior will be able to use his weapon all the time. Anyway, magic has always been the most powerful: between sword and sorcery, if you strive for power, go for sorcery.

While a 10th level wizard can have any power, since imagination is limitless, i expect a 10th level warrior to be like the toughest of men, without any magic power. He's going to have tons of HPs compared to other classes (65 avg, vs 25 of the wizard, 35 of thief & elf, 45 of the cleric and 55 of the dwarf), the best equipment money can buy and the best combat prowess, but he'll have limits. Human limits.

abk108 wrote:Well, the problem with that is the overpowered magic missile we got in the beta! If Magic Missile could do (tops) 70 damage, with 10 missile for 1d6+1 damage, and a warrior could do 34 with two attacks in a round, well that's not too bad, considering a warrior will be able to use his weapon all the time. Anyway, magic has always been the most powerful: between sword and sorcery, if you strive for power, go for sorcery.

While a 10th level wizard can have any power, since imagination is limitless, i expect a 10th level warrior to be like the toughest of men, without any magic power. He's going to have tons of HPs compared to other classes (65 avg, vs 25 of the wizard, 35 of thief & elf, 45 of the cleric and 55 of the dwarf), the best equipment money can buy and the best combat prowess, but he'll have limits. Human limits.

I agree with you here. A wizard will always win out over a brawn character in raw damage because a wizard is not EVERY round damage. Plus, Wizards have corruption and other factors to consider as they advance with levels. This can lead to a new proverb:

With great power comes great corruption

To chime in on other people in the thread, I really like the MDoA's but I am not sold on how well the pre-defined charts will play out at higher levels. The blinding, tripping, etc... are fairly powerful. Almost too powerful for a very high level warrior.

Because I have to have an idea here, I would like to throw this out. If the MDoA is about an action that affects you (i.e. I jump from the ledge, grabbing the banner on the wall, swinging down to cleave the Wizard as he is casting 'Black Death'. The MDoA roll would be unmodified to see if you managed all of that AND the attack.

But if you are blinding, tripping, or otherwise affecting an opponent directly with the MDoA... then you would subtract 1/2 your opponents HD from the MDoA roll (rounded down). That would reflect the skill of the opponent and not make all of the boss monsters a push over for a high level warrior.

I would also like to add that a MDoA should be be added to damage only for attacks that do not have a direct affect on an opponent (i.e. blinding, tripping).

About the comment above that a DCC Warrior is not as powerful as a 3e Warrior... that is just comparing apples and oranges. Their opponents are not going to be any where near as tough as what the 3e warrior fights. So in relative terms, the warrior is actually more powerful vs the HP and AC that their opponents will have.

abk108 wrote:Well, the problem with that is the overpowered magic missile we got in the beta! If Magic Missile could do (tops) 70 damage, with 10 missile for 1d6+1 damage, and a warrior could do 34 with two attacks in a round, well that's not too bad, considering a warrior will be able to use his weapon all the time. Anyway, magic has always been the most powerful: between sword and sorcery, if you strive for power, go for sorcery.

While a 10th level wizard can have any power, since imagination is limitless, i expect a 10th level warrior to be like the toughest of men, without any magic power. He's going to have tons of HPs compared to other classes (65 avg, vs 25 of the wizard, 35 of thief & elf, 45 of the cleric and 55 of the dwarf), the best equipment money can buy and the best combat prowess, but he'll have limits. Human limits.

I agree with you here. A wizard will always win out over a brawn character in raw damage because a wizard is not EVERY round damage. Plus, Wizards have corruption and other factors to consider as they advance with levels. This can lead to a new proverb:

With great power comes great corruption

To chime in on other people in the thread, I really like the MDoA's but I am not sold on how well the pre-defined charts will play out at higher levels. The blinding, tripping, etc... are fairly powerful. Almost too powerful for a very high level warrior.

Because I have to have an idea here, I would like to throw this out. If the MDoA is about an action that affects you (i.e. I jump from the ledge, grabbing the banner on the wall, swinging down to cleave the Wizard as he is casting 'Black Death'. The MDoA roll would be unmodified to see if you managed all of that AND the attack.

But if you are blinding, tripping, or otherwise affecting an opponent directly with the MDoA... then you would subtract 1/2 your opponents HD from the MDoA roll (rounded down). That would reflect the skill of the opponent and not make all of the boss monsters a push over for a high level warrior.

I would also like to add that a MDoA should be be added to damage only for attacks that do not have a direct affect on an opponent (i.e. blinding, tripping).

About the comment above that a DCC Warrior is not as powerful as a 3e Warrior... that is just comparing apples and oranges. Their opponents are not going to be any where near as tough as what the 3e warrior fights. So in relative terms, the warrior is actually more powerful vs the HP and AC that their opponents will have.

If you check the first page, I proposed something along those lines. Tougher enemies raise the bar for MDoA, based on their HD type and number.

Tortog wrote:
The; "I want my character to have more levels & options" meme is easily fixed by keeping the levels as written & allow characters (& non-humans) to take multiple classes. One of the house rules I'll be implementing is: players can take 1 additional Class for every point of INT bonus. This will allow characters to collect a larger pool of HP and skill/weapon choices & have some "epic" style game play.

I've even written a table for Occupation Class level progression from 0 to 5th (6 total levels). The idea that this adds next to nothing in combat value, but each extra level allows the character to make Occupational Class skill checks; like Alchemist, with greater levels of skill.

Ex. An Alchemist with an INT of 13, who survives the "Funnel" could go through his career alternating between "Alchemist" & Wizard. Then his career tops out at Alchemist 5/ Wizard 5 and would make Alchemist related skill checks at +5; +2 on attacks and most saves over & above a normal 5th level Wizard; and a total of 11d4+Stamina for HP. He could then retire as the equivalent of a 44th level PC in D&D3.5 & have the trophies and spoils to prove he did it.

Of course, a character w/ 16 levels (18 Int): Occ Class 5/Class 5/ Class 5 will have the equivalent of 64 levels in D&D3.5... is most likely Spelljamming and acting to change the Fate of entire Systems of Planets... but then I like "big" games with lots of scenery and role play potential.

Hey Tortog,
Just wanted to say I really like your approach with multi-classing and the Occupational Class concept. Very cool ideas.

smathis wrote:
Hey Tortog,
Just wanted to say I really like your approach with multi-classing and the Occupational Class concept. Very cool ideas.

Thanks! I'd forgotten that I posted this. I know its off topic, but I really do think that a DCC sanctioned form of multi-classing could solve so many of the arguments on these threads. MDoA for example... no need to figure out how to give access to non-warrior classes... just play a wizard/fighter. Certain things would have to be policed; like the regenerative luck of thieves. Ex: For multi-class thieves, there is no luck regeneration for non-thief luck expenditure... or something similar. I would also go with the traditional prohibition of no class combos involving wizard/psion/cleric as they cause insanity and/or death in the PC from cerebral aneurism.

smathis wrote:
Hey Tortog,
Just wanted to say I really like your approach with multi-classing and the Occupational Class concept. Very cool ideas.

Thanks! I'd forgotten that I posted this. I know its off topic, but I really do think that a DCC sanctioned form of multi-classing could solve so many of the arguments on these threads. MDoA for example... no need to figure out how to give access to non-warrior classes... just play a wizard/fighter. Certain things would have to be policed; like the regenerative luck of thieves. Ex: For multi-class thieves, there is no luck regeneration for non-thief luck expenditure... or something similar. I would also go with the traditional prohibition of no class combos involving wizard/psion/cleric as they cause insanity and/or death in the PC from cerebral aneurism.

It would also allow more playability for non-humans.

...and Bard 5/ Minstrel 5 would be terrifying, but I digress...

My modular suggestion to the "multiclassing" issue is to have two "Action Dice" per class. One a "primary" and one a "secondary". Your class determines which one you roll for certain things. For example, a Wizard would roll his primary action die for spellcasting and his secondary for combat. A Fighter would be just the opposite (assuming the Fighter tried to cast a ritual).

A Wizard/Fighter? Well, he'd get to use his "primary" die for both. But the dice would be smaller because it would take him longer to get to a 3rd level action die.

Just my $.02. It's how the classes in the supplement I'm writing are slated to work. Still has some lumps in it. But multi-classing should be pretty easy. Like brain-dead simple.